Title: Memo re: Florida Power & Light
CITATION PAGE IMAGE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00050685/00001
 Material Information
Title: Memo re: Florida Power & Light
Alternate Title: Memo re: Florida Power & Light new plant upstream of U. S. 301.
Physical Description: 1p.
Language: English
Publication Date: June 23, 1972
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
General Note: Box 1, Folder 6 ( FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO. - LITTLE MANATEE RIVER ), Item 45
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00050685
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text





% June 23, 1972



MEMORANDUM


TO: DON R. FEASTER, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCES

FROM: JAMES A. MANN, CHIEF, PERMITS DEPARTMENT

SUBJECT: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT NEW PLANT SITE
UPSTREAM OF U. S. 301


Brown and Roots' report for this site isn't too different from their
earlier report for the Parrish site. The new plant will require
a diversion of 29 cfs or 17 percent of the long term average flow of
the river at the point of diversion. All discharge figures have
been adjusted to the diversion site which is about 7 1/2 miles
upstream from the previous site and adjustments for a 1700
megawatt rather than a 3400 megawatt plant have also been made.
The amount of water to be diverted has been played down more
so than in the earlier report while the amount of water to be
returned to the fresh water system casually mentioned before
has been emphasized in this report.

Looking back at the earlier report, Plate 8, the average diversion
rate for a 1700 megawatt plant was shown as thirty-five second
feet, but the newer report indicates an average diversion of twenty-
nine second feet (20'1 less) for the same size plant. The difference
is favorable, less water diverted, however, I can't explain the
difference. Unless I have overlooked something this seems to be
a discrepancy.

The maximum pumping capacity is 135 second feet. Looking again
at Plate 8 of the earlier report, pumping capacity of the 125 second
feet is shown for a 1700 megawatt plant and it appears that another
discrepancy exists. However, this increase in pumping capacity
Sis necessary because flow in the river will be reduced by moving
the point of diversion upstream. Therefore, to take the same
amount of water from reduced peaks, one must have the capability
}of taking it at a faster rate.

1 George Bergona, of the Department of Natural Resources, was in
5 last week to talk about this new plant site. At that time, he indicated
to me that the Department of Natural Resources was seriously
considering regulating the Florida Power and Light diver sions i
From the river to periods when the flow was greater than 90 to 100 \/
{second feet. This was to be accomplished by placing a fixed crest
weir in the diversion canal. This seems to be a good idea from a
I water conservation viewpoint, but 1 doubt if it will be acceptable to
Florida Power and Light. This would mean that they would have
to increase their pump size in order to take the needed amount of
water from the peak flows and also it probably would cut their pump
efficiencies tremendously.






: ,




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs